DRM will not be legislated

[David Wagner]

> David Wagner wrote:
> > Anonymous  wrote:
> > > Legislation of DRM is not in the cards, [...]
> >
> > Care to support this claim?  (the Hollings bill and the DMCA requirement
> > for Macrovision in every VCR come to mind as evidence to the contrary)
> 
> To reiterate and lay out the points explicitly:
[... list partially truncated, retaining one illustrative point ...]
>  - Neither the content nor technology companies have incentive to support
>    legislation, as they still must convince people that paying for
>    content is superior to pirating it.  Legislating DRM will not help
>    them in this battle, as piracy will still be an alternative.

You argue that it would be irrational for content companies to push to
have DRM mandated.  This is something we could debate at length, but we
don't need to: rational or not, we already have evidence that content
companies have pushed, and *are* pushing, for some kind of mandated DRM.

The Hollings bill was interesting not for its success or failure, but
for what it reveals the content companies' agenda.  It seems plausible
that its supporters will be back next year with a "compromise" bill --
plausible enough that we'd better be prepared for such a circumstance.

As for Macrovision, your suggested distinction between DRM and
watermarking is too confusing for me to follow.  By any definition I'm
familiar with, Macrovision is DRM.  Sure, one might say that Macrovision
uses watermarking internally as a means to achieve its goals, but
that's besides the point.  DRM refers to *what* security policy a system
enforces, not how it enforces them.  A system can both use watermarking
and be a DRM system -- the two are not incompatible.

As for whether TCPA or Palladium will ever be mandated, that's anyone's
guess, and I don't think anyone knows for sure.  Given this, hadn't we
better plan for the possibility that it becomes mandated?